I really do tire of repeating myself and being expected to dumb things down to a level where you may be able to comprehend them. If this fails, I shan't be trying again.

It's inherently sexist because it is denigrating the speaker, and diminishing the value of their words, merely on account of their gender.

Now, if comprehension still eludes you in this instance, you may think or believe as you like because, let's be honest, I have better things in life to do than highlight hypocrisy that Mr Man seemingly struggles to comprehend.

All the best to you and yours.

Metta,
Paul.

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

I really do tire of repeating myself and being expected to dumb things down to a level where you may be able to comprehend them. If this fails, I shan't be trying again.

It's inherently sexist because it is denigrating the speaker, and diminishing the value of their words, merely on account of their gender.

Now, if comprehension still eludes you in this instance, you may think or believe as you like because, let's be honest, I have better things in life to do than highlight hypocrisy that Mr Man seemingly struggles to comprehend.

So Mitch didn't cover how "mansplain" is inherently sexist"? Okay.

At least now you have given your answer. Well done.

So you think "It's inherently sexist because it is denigrating the speaker, and diminishing the value of their words, merely on account of their gender". Okay

I don't think that is "merely on account of their gender". It is more about the style of communication in my opinion.

Commenting on Retro’s and Mr. Man’s back and forth on the Aussie senate video, I do think the female senator’s use of mansplain was an unhelpful use of rhetoric. While it may very well be the case that there is a statistically significant phenomenon consisting in men explaining things to women in a condescending tone where women do not do the same sort of thing, it is still a term that lacks substance. It’s pure rhetoric and distraction from basic informational content, and therefore should be considered repulsive to the ideal politician, I.e. a philosopher, one who loves wisdom.

The male senator for his part shouldn’t have dragged out his problem with the term mansplaining, which could be construed to be whining. He should have instead simply offered a quick apology for cutting off the line of questioning, perhaps prematurely, and then he should have simply stated that he felt it would expedite the arrival to whatever substantive point/issue was at stake.

If there is such a thing as mansplaining, let the sociologists argue about it, the politicians ought only need to refine their speech so as to communicate information based opinions effectively without getting bogged down in emotions and pure rhetoric. But alas, this is probably a fool’s hope.

As for the dictionary definition of mansplaining, it is assuredly a fact that at least some men do explain some things to women in a condescending tone because those men associate womenhood with some deficit in knowledge or reasoning ability. So the dictionary isn’t necessarily sexist. It would be ridiculous if the dictionary said that anytime a man explains something in a condescending tone to a woman, that that would be mansplaining in the sense that the man would be condescendingly explaining to the woman because she’s a woman.

It’s perfectly possible that a man could be explaining something to a woman condescendingly for reasons other than her being a woman, in which case it shouldn’t be considered mansplaining if mansplaining is to be a word that has descriptive value. If anytime a man explains something condescendingly to a woman can be called mansplaining, then mansplaining is not a descriptive word but rather an expressive word, like ouch. All it would function as is a sound to indicate that someone finds it unpleasant when women are spoken to condescendingly by men. This purely expressive use is unhelpful. Probably in reality the descriptive and expressive use of the term mansplaining are conflated often, which is also unhelpful.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

Possibly, but to actually work for a dictionary company and not grasp the limitations of language, or comprehend the contradictions and double-standards in one's own definitions is either both... or perhaps if ill-will should not be presupposed, just a double-dose of stupidity.

Applied linguistics, like writing dictionaries, is also a political activity, by far not just a strictly linguistic one. Not understanding that is evidence of a lacking education. Pretending not to understand that is yet another political activity.

No interest in discussing this, actually. Just wanted to mention, since Dictionary.com came up elsewhere, why I think it's run by idiots and should not be trusted as an authority on language or anything.

And a dictionary compiled by a team of academics is smart and honest, and authoritative?
Why -- can you justify your reasoning here?

And a dictionary compiled by a team of academics is smart and honest, and authoritative?
Why -- can you justify your reasoning here?

That's not my reasoning. So, no, I can't.
I also would have assumed that there is probably a team of academics working for dictionary.com. But I'm not sure.

As I said, I have no interest in discussing it, or elaborating on it any further than I did. I just left this here as an addendum to my opinion in that post and made a new topic of it to avoid cluttering there.

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

Actually I am sorry that this may have come off as dismissive in a condescending way.
What I meant is: I have no deeper reasoning to discuss, but just an opinion. That's all.
I am just too fond of making silly jokes. It's an unwholesome habit that I probably should keep better in check, sometimes.

Actually I am sorry that this may have come off as dismissive in a condescending way.
What I meant is: I have no deeper reasoning to discuss, but just an opinion. That's all.
I am just too fond of making silly jokes. It's an unwholesome habit that I probably should keep better in check, sometimes.

I'm just a big fan of The Dude, and that is my favourite quote.

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

And a dictionary compiled by a team of academics is smart and honest, and authoritative?
Why -- can you justify your reasoning here?

That's not my reasoning. So, no, I can't.
I also would have assumed that there is probably a team of academics working for dictionary.com. But I'm not sure.

Assuming is usually bad practice and these days it's usually unnecessary.
The front page of dictionary.com screams "populist, junky" to me - pop-up ads are a bad sign - but I found the "About" page. It says:

Dictionary.com’s main, proprietary source is the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, which is continually updated by our team of experienced lexicographers and supplemented with trusted, established sources including American Heritage and Harper Collins to support a range of language needs.

... so at least they have a team of people who know how to look up a real dictionary ("experienced lexicographers") and a team (probably a bigger team) of website designers.
Could be worse, could be better.

I've just shared that to word-conscious friends and I'm looking forward to some outraged responses.

The OED does say, “Our job is to describe the language people are using. The only reason this sense is included is because people are using it in this way," and the argument between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" approaches to words and grammar has been going on ever since dictionaries were invented, with no sign of a resolution. (Note that I don't count giving up in the face of overwhelming ignorance as a resolution.)
Kinda like some arguments on DW, come to think of it.